Compare and Contrast the Ways in Which the Plutarc Attempts to Discredit Antony with the Ways This Is Done in the Speech Attributed to Octavian by Cassius Dio.

It is important to note that ancient historians had an ethical approach to history that modern historians did not (Reputations 2008, 6-11). Historical writing was not based on evidence but on character, the focus was on why certain people did certain things, not what certain evidence may reveal. And so ancient historians would effectively invent prose based on a character profile of their own design, meaning their ‘speeches are not a record of what was said, but rather plausible fictions’ (Reputations 2008, 6-11). It should also be noted that both Cassius Dio and Plutarch were born over a century after the events they were writing about took place, meaning the evidence they based their work on was most likely of a similar design to their own, i.e. educated speculation and that whilst one piece (Plutarch) is a biographical writing intended to be seen as a historical writing, and the other (Dio) is personating Octavian, as is written as if to be perceived as directly from history and therefore the style of the writings are both very different.
The passage by Plutarch attempts to discredit Antony in a way which at face value is completely different to Dio, appearing at first glance a much softer attack on his character, for example mentioning that Octavian had marked the passages of Antony’s will that served to best discredit him (Plutarch, 2013, p.19).
This could potentially make a reader feel that Antony was victimised, whereas Dio writes in a more harsh, unforgiving way, ‘It is impossible for anyone who indulges in a life of royal luxury and pampers himself as a woman to conceive a manly thought or do a manly deed’ (Reputations 2008, 27).
. This reads as a kind of full frontal assault, utilised to effeminate Antony and therefore discredit him, it is implied, by Dio, that any man who behaves in ways similar to that of a woman has brought dishonour upon himself, this contrasts to Plutarch, who it would seem, writes Antony as a love sick child, whimsically...